CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtFull Bench(2001) 08 SC CK 0052

Regional Manager, RSRTC vs Ghanshyam Sharma

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 6 August 2001 · Citation: (2001) 8 AD 544 : AIR 2001 SC 3751 : (2001) AIRSCW 3678 : (2002) 112 CompCas 112 : (2001) 4 CompLJ 353 : (2001) CriLJ 353 : (2001) 8 JT 10 : (2001) LabIC 3722 : (2001) 2 LLJ 1252 : (2001) 6 SCALE 373 : (2001) 10 SCC 291 : (2001) 4 SCT 824 : (2001) 7 Supre

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivaraj V. Patil, J · N. Santosh Hedge, J · B. N. Kirpal, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 5104 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18441 of 2000)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 371 words

B.N. Kirpal J.-Special leave granted.

2.

The respondent in the present case was employed as a conductor by the appellant. On more than one occasion, he was punished having been charge-sheeted on the ground of not issuing the tickets to the passengers. In the instant case, it was found that he was carrying 231/2 passengers without ticket and an inquiry was conducted and he was removed from service.

3.

On a reference being made, the Labour Court invoked its jurisdiction under section 11(A) and while upholding the finding that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, it directed the respondent''s reinstatement, with continuity of service but without back wages. The learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the award which decision has been reversed by the division bench. Hence, this appeal.

4.

This Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B. S. Hullikatti, 2001 (2) JT 72 ], has held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to be retained in service because such inaction or action on the part of the conductors results in financial loss to the road transport corporation. This Court was firmly of the opinion that in cases like the present, orders of dismissal should not be set aside.

5.

Furthermore, we agree with the observations of the single Judge in the present case that the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal. Though under section 11(A), the Labour Court has jurisdiction and powers to interfere with the quantum of punishment, however, the discretion has to be used judiciously. When the main duty or function of the conductor is to issue tickets and collect fare and then deposit the same with road transport corporation and when a conductor fails to do so, then it will be misplaced sympathy to order his reinstatement instead of dismissal.For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the order of the division bench is set aside and that of the single judge restored. No costs.